Natural England knows best?

[steveR]

I was thinking about this issue the other day and I think people are being blinded by a 'It was in a scheme, but the scheme has ended so I can do what I like' mindset. The point about EIA legislation is that land falls under it regardless of whether the habitat was created on purpose by a scheme, on purpose voluntarily, or indeed accidentally......


.....So the 'It was in a scheme' argument is irrelevant. All that matters are the conditions on the ground and the actions the land manager has taken over the last X years. The reason for those actions doesn't matter. So if you join a long term environmental scheme that has the specific aim of increasing the habitat value of the land then there is a significant risk that your actions will eventually result in the land failing an EIA test.

I agree with, and can understand all that you say. However, in my instance ,where my agreement terminated a little before that of @ajcc, I was specifically allowed to revert the land, and it said so in writing.

It may well behowever, that EIA legislation may well trump such a statement... But the onus should be on who to prove that it is the case?

 

[Extreme Optimist]

I was thinking about this issue the other day and I think people are being blinded by a 'It was in a scheme, but the scheme has ended so I can do what I like' mindset. The point about EIA legislation is that land falls under it regardless of whether the habitat was created on purpose by a scheme, on purpose voluntarily, or indeed accidentally.

After all, if you went out and created a wildflower rich meadow out of an arable field off your own bat then it would eventually fall under EIA legislation and you'd never be able to plough it up again. We know this - arable land becomes temporary grassland, which becomes permanent grassland, and if you don't 'cultivate' your permanent grassland with fertiliser and chemicals for long enough it would eventually fail an EIA test to revert to arable. That can happen regardless of whether one is being paid to manage the land in any given way. It could happen because of active decisions made, or purely by accident.

So the 'It was in a scheme' argument is irrelevant. All that matters are the conditions on the ground and the actions the land manager has taken over the last X years. The reason for those actions doesn't matter. So if you join a long term environmental scheme that has the specific aim of increasing the habitat value of the land then there is a significant risk that your actions will eventually result in the land failing an EIA test.

It should also be made plain by NE that thisis the case BEFORE you enter any agreement.

 

[ajcc]

In my particular case the EIA regulations 2006 which( I am being charged with breaching) were introduced in year 14 of an existing second term of arable reversion css agreement which had NO break clause.
In 2012 I applied for EIA screening.....that’s where it all goes very opaque and NE embarks on a new and very shady agenda which is still live in courts.
Beware they play dirty and have deep pockets.

 

[Goweresque]

I agree with, and can understand all that you say. However, in my instance ,where my agreement terminated a little before that of @ajcc, I was specifically allowed to revert the land, and it said so in writing.

It may well behowever, that EIA legislation may well trump such a statement... But the onus should be on who to prove that it is the case?

I wouldn't want to comment on the specifics of individual cases without knowing all the details, it certainly sounds like @ajcc has had at best a raw deal, and at worst been the subject of a miscarriage of justice. I was more dealing with the situation of anyone entering an environmental scheme now.

It seems to me that if ELMS is going to get off the ground the likes of the NFU/CLA etc are going to pin down both Defra and NE over this issue - if EIA legislation will always trump anything in an ELMS agreement then ELMS is dead in the water for anything other than agreements covering short term changes to land use/land management methods.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I wouldn't want to comment on the specifics of individual cases without knowing all the details, it certainly sounds like @ajcc has had at best a raw deal, and at worst been the subject of a miscarriage of justice. I was more dealing with the situation of anyone entering an environmental scheme now.

It seems to me that if ELMS is going to get off the ground the likes of the NFU/CLA etc are going to pin down both Defra and NE over this issue - if EIA legislation will always trump anything in an ELMS agreement then ELMS is dead in the water for anything other than agreements covering short term changes to land use/land management methods.

I think the dealings of the post office shows how arms length government bodies treat the general population, even now the managers of the post office have got off scott free

 

[steveR]

I wouldn't want to comment on the specifics of individual cases without knowing all the details, it certainly sounds like @ajcc has had at best a raw deal, and at worst been the subject of a miscarriage of justice. I was more dealing with the situation of anyone entering an environmental scheme now.

It seems to me that if ELMS is going to get off the ground the likes of the NFU/CLA etc are going to pin down both Defra and NE over this issue - if EIA legislation will always trump anything in an ELMS agreement then ELMS is dead in the water for anything other than agreements covering short term changes to land use/land management methods.

I think that @Clive needs to get a few question posed for David Kenneday and Janet ??? at the next Q&A session with them... ASAP!

Possibly they and others, are not really aware of the implications of the EIA on agreements in the long term, or (putting on conspiracy headgear) is the agenda there, to remove large swathes of farm land and lock it into unproductive "cropping", and not pay for it into the future??

 

[renewablejohn]

It should also be made plain by NE that thisis the case BEFORE you enter any agreement.

The CLA are fully aware of government bodies changing the rules after the agreement has been signed. Think it was 2016 APF show that I put the forestry commision on the spot for such practices which they denied but give the CLA there due they ripped into the forestry commission representative with many other examples of similar incidents with their members. Nothing has changed and I certainly would not agree to any new forestry agreement.

 

[Extreme Optimist]

The CLA are fully aware of government bodies changing the rules after the agreement has been signed. Think it was 2016 APF show that I put the forestry commision on the spot for such practices which they denied but give the CLA there due they ripped into the forestry commission representative with many other examples of similar incidents with their members. Nothing has changed and I certainly would not agree to any new forestry agreement.

Maybe I am being naive here, but I thought these "Agreements" were legal documents - contracts in other words and to change the terms SHOULD require the agreement of both parties. As far as I am concerned this is fraud and extortion and these quangos should be held to account - but that is pie in the sky!!

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Maybe I am being naive here, but I thought these "Agreements" were legal documents - contracts in other words and to change the terms SHOULD require the agreement of both parties. As far as I am concerned this is fraud and extortion and these quangos should be held to account - but that is pie in the sky!!

It would indeed be interesting to see what a court made of these "agreements".

- They are described by the body "offering" them as "agreements" but are only offered on a "take it or leave it" basis.
- They include in the "terms and conditions" a specific condition that NE can vary any of the conditions at will and will "endeavor" to give as much notice as they can of their unilateral change.
- The only option the agreement holder had if they don't agree to the change is to withdraw and repay everything they've received so far.
- NE can withdraw from the "agreement" at any time without penalty but would still retain all their rights of inspection and publicity for 7 years.

 

[steveR]

It would indeed be interesting to see what a court made of these "agreements".

- They are described by the body "offering" them as "agreements" but are only offered on a "take it or leave it" basis.
- They include in the "terms and conditions" a specific condition that NE can vary any of the conditions at will and will "endeavor" to give as much notice as they can of their unilateral change.
- The only option the agreement holder had if they don't agree to the change is to withdraw and repay everything they've received so far.
- NE can withdraw from the "agreement" at any time without penalty but would still retain all their rights of inspection and publicity for 7 years.

Maybe ask the NFU or CLA professional contract checker service what they make of one...?

 

[Extreme Optimist]

It would indeed be interesting to see what a court made of these "agreements".

- They are described by the body "offering" them as "agreements" but are only offered on a "take it or leave it" basis.
- They include in the "terms and conditions" a specific condition that NE can vary any of the conditions at will and will "endeavor" to give as much notice as they can of their unilateral change.
- The only option the agreement holder had if they don't agree to the change is to withdraw and repay everything they've received so far.
- NE can withdraw from the "agreement" at any time without penalty but would still retain all their rights of inspection and publicity for 7 years.

If that is really the case, we deserve everything we get if we sign up under these terms. They devalue our land, reduce the profitability and have us by the balls - it's just how much they choose to squeeze! We should probably en masse tell them where they can stick their schemes rather than sell our souls

 

[steveR]

It would indeed be interesting to see what a court made of these "agreements".

- They are described by the body "offering" them as "agreements" but are only offered on a "take it or leave it" basis.
- They include in the "terms and conditions" a specific condition that NE can vary any of the conditions at will and will "endeavor" to give as much notice as they can of their unilateral change.
- The only option the agreement holder had if they don't agree to the change is to withdraw and repay everything they've received so far.
- NE can withdraw from the "agreement" at any time without penalty but would still retain all their rights of inspection and publicity for 7 years.

I wonder if NE could legally change an agreement that was for 5 years, and automtaically extend it...?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I wonder if NE could legally change an agreement that was for 5 years, and automtaically extend it...?

Have you ever fully read the full terms and conditions? It's why (along with the difficulty here in scoring enough "points" being lowland grass outside an LFA) I've never been in any of the environment schemes, not even ELS.

 

[renewablejohn]

Maybe I am being naive here, but I thought these "Agreements" were legal documents - contracts in other words and to change the terms SHOULD require the agreement of both parties. As far as I am concerned this is fraud and extortion and these quangos should be held to account - but that is pie in the sky!!

It is fraud but very little you can do about it as any justice in a UK court is very difficult to obtain.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I wonder if NE could legally change an agreement that was for 5 years, and automtaically extend it...?

As per my post #109:

Clause 21 allows them to change anything unilaterally. Clause 22 is arse covering in case it is all challenged but, to be fair, is common in many legal agreements.

 

[Ukjay]

As per my post #109:

View attachment 956702

Clause 21 allows them to change anything unilaterally. Clause 22 is arse covering in case it is all challenged but, to be fair, is common in many legal agreements.

Which begs the question did they issue a revision of agreement highlighting the change to whatever subsection / paragraph etc?

 

[renewablejohn]

Which begs the question did they issue a revision of agreement highlighting the change to whatever subsection / paragraph etc?

In my case no revision of the original agreement just a letter to say what the new rules are with failure to comply resulting in my compensation payment being stopped. Hence my payment was stopped in 2015.

 

[Flat 10]

If that is really the case, we deserve everything we get if we sign up under these terms. They devalue our land, reduce the profitability and have us by the balls - it's just how much they choose to squeeze! We should probably en masse tell them where they can stick their schemes rather than sell our souls

Almost like Red tractor

 

[steveR]

Have you ever fully read the full terms and conditions? It's why (along with the difficulty here in scoring enough "points" being lowland grass outside an LFA) I've never been in any of the environment schemes, not even ELS.

It is nearly 11 years since I signed on the dotted line as I came out of an early CS and into HLS/ELS which was a very different sort of agreement. So not read a recent one...

I leave with no regrets in September, having gracefully declined an offer to extend the agreement. From what I inferred from the NE bod, I was not alone in this.

 

[steveR]

In my case no revision of the original agreement just a letter to say what the new rules are with failure to comply resulting in my compensation payment being stopped. Hence my payment was stopped in 2015.

Ceasing payment is almost acceptable, essentially backdating and asking for repayment for not acceding to the changes, is not....